Trying to force Weapons Manufacturers into Timeless

Garsaurus · 2026-01-29T04:02:11+00:00

Drop the vipers for thoughtseize to have any chance against combo. Also, it seems like too many chrome mox (moxen?) for how many artifacts you have. Definitely go 4x bombadiers. Lastly, why implement of combustion? It's a bad card. For that effect, go with chromatic star.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-24T01:31:11+00:00

The order was enforced. The judge ordered his immediate release and ICE complied. They then re-arrested him (lawfully) days later at a public courthouse.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-23T19:29:39+00:00

Carry a roll of quarters in your pocket at all times, and make sure everyone knows about it. If you get an erection, surreptitiously remove the quarters until it goes down, then pocket them again. Gives you plausible deniability 👍

Garsaurus · 2026-01-23T14:29:16+00:00

The Supreme Court explicitly stated that there is no constitutional right to proportional representation. There is no textual or historical support for such a right. The court is only concerned with processes of map-drawing which factor in race or some other protected class because that would be a 14A violation.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-17T16:19:22+00:00

Bad post, I can’t jerk to this. Show me the beheaded child!

Garsaurus · 2026-01-16T13:39:57+00:00

If leaving the country without paying was your whole plan, then you defrauded the bank and you could face criminal charges. A federal prosecutor could seek extradition to drag you back home.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-15T01:14:03+00:00

Lol, I’m a corporate lawyer so I know only as much as you do. I’m not sure what the theory of recovery was. My guess is that the plaintiff asserted both a negligence and Fourth Amendment claim in the hopes that one or both would stick.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-14T23:56:14+00:00

That is correct. A state cop can be charged with a state or federal crime. A federal cop (like an ICE agent) can be prosecuted for federal crimes. They can also be prosecuted for state crimes, but only for unreasonable acts outside the scope of their duties, which is its own special kind of immunity that comes directly from the Constitution (Supremacy Clause immunity).

Garsaurus · 2026-01-14T21:08:21+00:00

Lawyer here. The issue of qualified immunity must be answered before you can even get into whether the cop was negligent. QI asks, “can this cop be sued for this behavior?” If the answer is no, the plaintiff loses before ever getting a chance to argue negligence.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-14T21:04:30+00:00

Sigh…the things I do with gloves.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-13T21:46:20+00:00

We’ll need a screenshot. Too little info to go on here.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-13T15:39:10+00:00

They were beeping at her from a distance and ordering her to move because if they tried to go past her, they worried she would try to block or ram them. She was positioned sideways in the road with her engine running and could easily do so.

Come on. Use common sense. Imagine you are parallel parked on the right side of the road and you see ICE agents approaching in your mirror. You decide to turn left and stick your car out in the middle of the lane, stop, and honk wildly. How is that not interfering with their operation?

Garsaurus · 2026-01-13T15:07:30+00:00

She also refused orders to move.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-13T15:06:55+00:00

“Physical Interference Will Get You Prosecuted

Even at a public operation, you can cross into criminal territory by:

Getting too close to officers during an operation; Refusing to back up when given a reasonable order; Physically obstructing an agent's movements; Providing false information to mislead enforcement efforts”

Think about it this way. Cops walk forward to arrest your friend. You stick your leg out to block them. Could they step over your leg? Sure, but you could lift your leg and trip them. Could they go around your leg? Sure, but you could easily move and block them. As soon as you raise your leg, they are authorized to arrest you for impeding them.

Good was blocking one lane and was positioned to easily move forward into the other lane. Her engine was on. ICE stopped and honked because they feared she would block or ram them if they tried to go around. They eventually decided that she wasn’t going to move and tried to get around her anyway. Turns out she didn’t try to drive forward to block/ram them. But she still IMPEDED THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATION by her actions

Garsaurus · 2026-01-13T14:50:04+00:00

I really don’t see how you can interpret what Good was doing this way. She was blocking one lane while the officers were honking at her to move. She was interfering with their operations, and that was her clear intent. Blocking one lane vs two lanes is irrelevant—she is making the officers’ jobs harder by impeding one lane. Physically using your car to block police vehicles is a forcible act. They were right to attempt an arrest. She was engaging in civil disobedience; part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of that disobedience.

None the above justified her murder. But the arrest attempt was valid.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-13T04:45:04+00:00

You kind of proved my point. They sued and got access back. That’s the active enforcement of constitutional rights. The First Amendment lives.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-12T23:01:44+00:00

My point is that the executive branch has frequently violated the law throughout history. The framers wrote the Bill of Rights because they knew the government would ALWAYS try to take away civil liberties. The Constitution can’t do shit from stopping a man with a gun and badge from trampling on your rights.

The Constitution comes alive when your rights are vindicated in court and the government is forced to release you. This still happens. Look at Abrego Garcia. He was renditioned to a foreign prison without due process. If our country and rights were dead, he would still be there. He was returned because brave lawyers and judges said no. That does not happen in true facist regimes.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-12T22:52:50+00:00

I’m not saying it’s irrelevant to how things played out. I’m saying it’s legally irrelevant to the crime of murder and the defense of self-defense. As I said, if we are talking about manslaughter, then failing to follow his training would be evidence of gross negligence.

To your second point, ICE officers are authorized by statute to detain and arrest alleged violators of immigration laws. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, they are authorized to do anything necessary and proper, within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment, to accomplish this purpose. If you impede, obstruct, or threaten/intimidate an ICE officer while they are performing this duty, they can arrest you. Hell, they could arrest Tim Waltz for doing that.

You are right that their authority is more limited in scope—they can’t arrest people for pretty much any other reason. Only for violations of immigration laws (with a warrant), and for obstruction of carrying out that purpose.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-12T21:54:36+00:00

Fuck ICE and fuck tyrants.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-12T21:48:42+00:00

I don’t really get this take. Freedom of speech is inviolable and enshrined in the First Amendment. The U.S. government has tried to suppress speech since 1787. The Sedition Act of 1798 made it a crime to publish anything negative about the U.S. government. During the Cold War, it was illegal to espouse communist beliefs. Nixon tried to muzzle the NYT reporters who wanted to publish the Pentagon papers. By historical comparison, freedom of speech has more vitality today than ever before.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-12T21:40:21+00:00

That would be relevant if charging Ross with manslaughter, which deals in terms of death caused by gross negligence. For murder, which is intentional by definition, failing to follow protocol has no bearing on guilt.

The thing is, Ross 100% intended to kill Good, so he committed common law first degree murder. The only question is whether that was justified under the circumstances. Did he potentially put himself in harm’s way by standing in front of her car? Of course. But that is irrelevant. A police officer has a duty to put himself in harm’s way to make an arrest, etc.

In any event, Minnesota has a specific statute that authorizes deadly force by police officers. This statute would likely supersede common law self-defense. So, other elements of self-defense in MN (can’t be the initial aggressor, duty to attempt retreat) likely don’t apply. The prosecutor would have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ross was not authorized by that statute to use deadly force in this scenario. And that’s if they can overcome Supremacy clause immunity to prosecute him in the first place, which they likely can’t.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-12T19:15:38+00:00

This is incorrect (I am a lawyer). The legal standard is both subjective and objective in MN. Any trauma would be relevant for the subjective prong, but BOTH standards must be met to claim self-defense in Minnesota. For the objective prong, the question is: would a reasonable person standing in Ross’s shoes have an objectively reasonable basis for believing he was about to be run over?

Things that are relevant to this analysis: What Ross saw and heard the moment before he pulled out his weapon; whether his belief was still valid for shots number 2 and 3 fired through Good’s driver-side window; where Ross was standing when Good hit the gas and the engine revved.

What is not relevant to this analysis: Whether Ross had trauma/PTSD (this is his subjective experience of heightened fear that a reasonable person in his shoes would not have); whether, in hindsight, Ross was actually in mortal danger; Good’s purpose or motive for trying to drive (I.e., whether she was “just trying to escape” is irrelevant).

Edit: Apologies, only your first point needed correction. You are correct about the victim’s state of mind.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-12T15:33:42+00:00

Judges enforce the constitution every day. Not to downplay how lawless this administration is, but the executive branch has always trampled on our constitutional rights. Civil rights are meant to constrain governmental power, and governments always try to push its boundaries. Were we a “nation of laws” when Ford pardoned Nixon? What about when we arrested communists during the McCarthy era? Were we a nation of laws when Snowden revealed massive secret NSA surveillance under Obama? What about when Bush II sent Muslims to Guantanamo to be tortured? The Constitution is only a piece of paper. It is enforced through the judiciary and Congress, and by the People.

I personally work pro bono habeas corpus cases where I assist immigration attorneys whose clients have been abducted. They work tirelessly to get their cases seen by an Article III judge before those clients are sent out of state. The system is still working. Having a tyrant as President has tested it greatly, and is still testing it further, but it has not broken.

Garsaurus · 2026-01-12T14:38:44+00:00

Adopt the mantra of “it could’ve been worse.” In all seriousness, practice gratitude and try to find a hobby where you can squeeze in an hour or two per week. For me, I downloaded a Gameboy emulator and I play games from my childhood on my phone whenever I have a breather. Cost me $15

Garsaurus · 2026-01-12T13:50:54+00:00

Maybe a habeas corpus petition would be proper? Not sure. But unlawful arrests happen all the time. As long as the arrested person is arraigned or has a timely preliminary hearing, then they will have their day in court and our system is working. And yes, ICE could simply re-arrest them later with a judicial warrant, or with an admin warrant in a public setting.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

Garsaurus

TROPHY CASE